Superman Through the Ages! Forum

Do you remember the dear, old pre-Crisis Superman? Of course you do! He is here again:

(http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/7302/page13ho.jpg)
(http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/4080/page46gb.jpg)
(http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/8089/page56ny.jpg)
(http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/4306/page64tb.jpg)
(http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/7380/page78eh.jpg)
(http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/8649/page82hd.jpg)

It seems good... And it probably is!

Get a load of that chin!  
I didn't know that Bruce Campbell was the pre-Crisis Superman!

FWIW, I think the solar chromosphere is a little hotter than 6000 degrees F...  not _that_ much hotter, mind you, but somewhat hotter.

That's All-Star Superman, not Pre-Crisis Superman, it's a whole new start.

Looks like yet another version of Jor-El and Lara.

All I can say is, they must have had quite an extensive wardrobe collection - and impressive super-speed - to be able to change clothes so many times during that brief final scene before Krypton's destruction...

I like Lara's "Rao" makeup though, if that's what it is :)


:s:

January 14, 1994 by Phillip F. Schewe and Ben Stein


THE SOLAR CHROMOSPHERE IS COLDER than we thought. The chromosphere is the region between the photosphere (the sun's surface, at a temperature of about 6000 K) and the corona (whose temperature is 1 million K or more). Previously scientists had figured that the chromosphere temperature was relatively cool---an estimated 4300 K at an altitude of 500 km above the sun's surface---but new measurements made at Kitt Peak show that the chromosphere is colder than this. High-resolution infrared observations of carbon monoxide molecules at the limb of the sun provide a new minimum temperature of 3500 K which, furthermore, seems to occur at a higher altitude, 1100 km. Robert Noyes of Harvard Smithsonian says that carbon monoxide clouds may be a transitory phenomenon in the solar atmosphere. (Science, 7 Jan. 1994, Science News, 8 Jan.)


EDIT: Maybe some dumb editor changed 6000 K to 6000 F without converting it?

It looks cool, but I've completely missed the point of it. What's the deal with this All-Star stuff?

I believe this is DC aping Marvel's Ultimate books.

IOW, milking existing characters/books by spinning off an entirely new continuity for them divorced from the mainstream.

Hey, DC also has their animated series books like JLU, etc.

The point is to give All-Star teams of Superstar Writers and Artists free reign to do their own versions of a big time DC hero that is outside of normal continuity. So far we have seen Batman and soon Superman.

That means that the next all-star team that takes over the book after these teams leave, may start over again with their own continuity or I suppose they could build upon what the last team did if they wished.

There's not any shared continuity or universe between "All-Star Batman", "All-Star Superman", "All-Star Wonder Woman" (which I think is the next one in the pipe), etc. unlike the Marvel Ultimate universe.  

Besides "All-Star" creators, the intent is for there to be more of an "iconic" representation of the characters as well, kinda like the Alex Ross giant-size "Peace On Earth".

An astute observation.

I find myself intrigued by the concept of All-Star DC (though I am hardly Grant Morrison's biggest fan, at least he has shown to understand who Superman is, unlike other writers). Though at the same time, I find myself terrified by the concept of Ultimates.

Part of the reason All-Star DC is so much more a breath of fresh air is because as a result of constant revisionism to iconic characters particularly in the past few decades, "DC Continuity" has become an oxymoron. As a result of miniseries like HAWKWORLD and MAN OF STEEL, it is unclear what has happened where. Who the heck is Hawkman these days? Was Superman ever in the Justice League? Was it Wonder Woman, Wonder Woman's Mother, or Liberty Belle that was in the JSA? Who really knows? The point of continuity is to have a concrete history, and the moment the revisionist bug started biting, issues had to be thrown out, which defeats the entire purpose of a continuity: that stories wouldn't be thrown away.

"But Julian," you say, "what's the big deal, baby? I mean, it's all fictional characters, right? What's wrong with the DC Universe occasionally being outright contradictory? Paul Bunyan has various mutually contradictory stories."

The problem with this is, we are not supposed to accept Paul Bunyan as "real." But we are to do the same with the DC characters because we want to have an emotional investment in them. Everybody talks about Paul Bunyan, but nobody really cares about him. Fictional worlds are more impressive and memorable the more real they seem. Look at the legions of fans around novels like DUNE and LORD OF THE RINGS.

This wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't for the fact the revisions were clueless and detached from who the characters are. Obviously the most offensive was John Byrne's MAN OF STEEL in terms of his failure to grasp what the character of Superman is all about. These also include Howard Chaykin's TWILIGHT, which changed the previously clean-limbed, milk-drinking DC Space Heroes into sleazy sex fiends. This happened in the excesses of HAWKWORLD, where now not only do the brilliant silver age Hawkman stories no longer serve as possible resources for future stories, it isn't even clear exactly what the deal is with Hawkman anymore.

So, in this atmosphere of revisionists having killed the goose that laid the golden egg, can it be that I'm actually LOOKING FORWARD to a Grant Morrison comic?

Hey, stranger things have happened.  :D

well, there are now rumors that both of these All-Star series might be just limited series. In other words there will only be 12 issues of all star Superman, just like Birthright.

Maybe these are "tests" to see if DC can actually make an Ultimate-esque universe successful?

DC seems to try stuff like that before actually changing things. For example, look at Krypton and Supergirl. Before the Birthright Krypton was created a "new" version of the planet was presented in the RTK storyline. This Krypton was later shown to be a fake and the real Krypton was revised to be more like the classic Krypton. With Supergirl, we had PAD bring in the original Kara before, who eventually went back to the place she belonged. Not that soon afterwards, the real post-Crisis Kara came to Earth.

That being said, I'm hoping that this title isn't just a maxi-series. Morrison wasn't kidding about using EVERY version of the Superman mythos. Jor-El and Lara's clothes, for example, have elements of the Golden Age, Silver/Bronze Age, the Donner movies, the Iron Age, and the Birthright Krypton.

Here's a question: if "All-Star-ization" continues, will the effects it yields be positive or negative?

I for one, think that in the short term the effects will be positive: we're getting artists and writers that like the characters wanting to do them in the classic mode who do not want to worry about Manchester Black or Cat Grant (who the hell is that?), or about the gimmicky "event comic" super-marriage or worrying that Superman might turn electric. I don't have any faith in Grant Morrison at all, but at least he gets who Superman is - something that can't be said about the mental inbreeding that goes on in the Super-Offices, where bad concepts and bad interpretations are recycled.

In the long term, though, I think the effects will ultimately be negative. I don't know about you, but I think a character's history, their past adventures, and what they have experienced and done is much more interesting than their powers, costume, and their code-name. This is why I am infuriated by the Ultimates; the Avengers that never fought Kang in the Celestial Madonna, never saw the marriage of the Vision and the Scarlet Witch, and never had Captain America and Hawkeye first fight and then become allies...well, they're not the Avengers at all. We'll see Grant Morrison's Brainiac, then after he leaves, we'll see Mark Millar's Brainiac, then possibly Geoff Johns' Brainiac...all mutually contradictory, all conflicting views.

There is a story about a coffee shop owner who had various labels on his coffee, like raspberry coffee, almond and nut coffee, and so on. He had a puckish sense of humor, so he labeled one "coffee-flavored coffee." Here's the strange part: far and away, "coffee-flavored coffee" became the bestselling flavor. I don't want Geoff Johns-flavored Brainiac or Grant Morrison-flavored Brainiac; I want Brainiac-flavored Brainiac.

True, characters like Superman and Brainiac change over time and each writer and artist leave their mark on them. But this becomes their history of how they grow and change. Treating them like Shakespeare plays that every production strives to leave their mark on, treats them as marketing icons, like Buster Brown on his shoes. While perhaps some real DC Continuity is too much to ask for, would it hurt to have characters at least remember their previous stories?

Another long-term problem with the "All Star" mentality is that it ignores history in favor of what is viewed by the artists as "the essential aspects of a character." Consider, for example, someone doing an "All-Star JLA." Obviously you'd have the Big Seven, and maybe one or two characters that are the writers' pet favorite or obsession like maybe Plastic Man, Steel, or Orion. They'd never go anywhere near characters that while are not as large as marketing icons as the so-called Big Seven, but are nonetheless functional and enjoyable members of the Justice League. I don't just read JLA for Batman and Wonder Woman. I read it for Zatanna, the Elongated Man, the Atom, Green Arrow, Black Canary, Hawkman, and Red Tornado.

Well, Alex Ross's Justice series is pretty much that, it is also outside of normal continuity.

The way I look at it is this, MY DC universe is no more, Crisis took care of that. MY Superman is no more, Man of Steel took care of him.

They will never, ever come back besides reprint TPBs.

So I really couldn't care less about normal continuity, since I never liked that version of continuity anyway. After the current Crisis is over, it's going to be all different again anyway, so you know, whatever  :?

I feel the same way you do, and agree with you, although without the sense of finality. The fact that DC has a non-history or non-continuity now does not mean that will always be so.

Like Alan Moore says, "No age lasts forever - not even a dark one."

I'm holding out for some genius - someone like Alan Moore or Kurt Busiek or even Steve Englehart if they can dust him off and restore him to life with Ancient Egyptian Rites - who is able to put Humpty-Dumpty back together again.

My moneys on Darwyn Cooke.  Too bad he's been saddled with The Spirit.

I'm still wondering if the All-Star line isn't DC playing "counter-programming" with its own regular titles.  We've heard rumors that the DC Universe will become more "grim and gritty" -- perhaps the "brighter" All-Star line is designed to retain disaffected readers and Silver/Bronze fans?  Why else would DC create a whole different continuity (in addition to their animated universe titles) when supposingly we're not getting a new Multiverse in this latest Crisis, and "Hypertime" is going "bye-bye"?

Concerning the artwork, I assume the All-Star universe's Clark Kent left the Daily Planet to become the host of The Tonight Show.   :wink:

And could "General Lane" be Lois' father?  In current DC continuity, Sam Lane died defending the White House in Our Worlds at War.  Interesting to see who else is still "alive" here...

I consider it a great tribute to that Superman. In the next issues we will see

S

P

O

I

L

E

R

Luthor classic villain, Bizarro World, Clark as Superboy...

If good stories and character elements emerge from it, then it'll be good.


FWIW, I can appreciate elements of Superman from pre-Crisis comics, post-Crisis, and other media (the TV series, toons, Maggin novels, etc.).  There are many elements I despise as well from all those genres.  

Cat Grant and Manchester Black were two decent characters when done right.  Check out the first season of L&C for fine Cat Grant moments.  Manchester Black has a cool veneer to him, even his name comes from the Apache Chief / Minnesota President school.  He and the Elite are certainly as good a take on '90s-era indy comic superpunks as Magog.


That's because the indy comic writers that went in for that sort of thing raked in the big bucks and sales, and the big comic book houses took 'em in.  Like it or not, that crap sells.  Sometimes, there's good stuff amidst that crap.  For example, Superman: The Vanishing had some germs of good ideas (what about a contingency plan to protect the entire Earth from the worst) and really pretty Jim Lee art, amidst horrible story execution.  Worst, it incorporated bad elements from other lousy plotlines (the Russian General Zod) and even bad pre-Crisis schlock (super-self-hypnosis).  


But how do you feel about Ultimate Spider-Man?  Same writer and author for 90+ issues building up quite a continuity, doing stuff more interesting than any of the Spider-Man rags since the Ben Reilly mess (with maybe the exception of a JMS story arc or two, but JMS went to the cesspool).  And Morrison's take on Thor (that Millar adopted) in the Ultimates is way cool, in my book.  




So what you're really complaining about is the lack of editorial continuity, of editors either bowing to superstar writers or editors themselves acting like superstar writers to the detriment of continuity.  


You mean the Otto Binder Brainiac, then?  The one that started out as just an alien, then was retconed as a robot six years by Ed Hamilton because all things that ended in -iac had to be robots.  (Never mind the fact that Otto Binder certainly knew how to do robots if that's what he had intended.)  This led to retconning Jerry Siegel's Brainiac 5, who had simply been evil Brainiac's descendant but now had to be complicated for no good reason.  If you want continuity police, Brainiac is not a good place to start.  


Some stories, like it or not, are a product of their times and remembering them would make things dated.  Superman ditching Supergirl in some sort of orphanage as a "secret weapon" (a.k.a. trying to decide if a Supergirl would play as well with the fans as Mary Marvel) is a problematic story for today.  How far back do you go?


It's being done, essentially.  Check out Alex Ross' Justice.  


Some folks figured this out and created the JLU cartoons.  :)

Maybe, maybe not - does the phrase "superstar creator" make anybody else really nervous?

Grant Morrison at least, is thinking in the right direction - however, his historically demonstrated flash-over-substance approach, lack of ability to characterize, and his archaic "bottle" approach to each story makes me nervous. I personally enjoyed the cliche charm of a movie like INDEPENDENCE DAY, which is totally unoriginal and character-free and doesn't pretend to be anything else but big budget spectacle; there are so many ways however, that ID4 could not have worked. I liked Morrison's JLA in the same way I liked INDEPENDENCE DAY, by appreciating it for what it is; however, if Morrison forgets his limitations, however, they will appear.



Really? I thought the LOIS AND CLARK Cat Grant was a fairly one-dimensional skank. And while the "Missouri President" crack brings a smile to my face, Manchester Black is a manifestation of a repetitive story of the Modern Age that irks me: "The Silver Age Gets Revenge" story, like KINGDOM COME or that JSA story arc involving Atom Smasher turning evil for some reason. While I agree with the intention, the Silver Age can be brought back by telling stories of equal imaginative power, not by smashing a straw man.



Aw, man, of all the imaginative concepts the Silver Age had, they had to go and bring back THAT one?

Why do I hear Billy Friday from SUPREME shouting loudly in his nasal British voice: "THEN we'll have Omni-Dog raped and gassed, and the undersea mermaid city succumb to mercury poisoning!"



Spider-Man isn't one of my favorite superheroes, and so I am hardly emotionally invested in his stories. However, from what I've read of ULTIMATE SPIDER-MAN, it has him as a teenager again, and I really hate superhero teenage stories because they are universally histrionic. Teenage problems never look as irrelevant as they do when the other things on a character's mind include SAVING THE WORLD. The trendy, insincere pop culture references will make USM a thousand times more dated and unintentionally hilarious 10 years from now, a thousand times funnier than Luke Cage's tinfoil headband and little white girl Dazzler "talking street" while wearing platform shoes and a disco ball necklace. The Kingpin asks Spider-Man who hires him, and he responds "Carson Daly." It was made a few years ago, and it ALREADY feels dated - aren't his 15 minutes of fame over? And I swear they did NOT make a J-Lo butt joke. While the characters in the original Ditko run had definite personalities, in Ultimates they are hollow cardboard versions of themselves, pop-out characters, like "rich kid" or "goth."

They replace timeless character concepts with absurd, up to the moment fads that pass through the ether of our culture. Witness Kraven the Hunter as a Discovery Channel crocodile hunter-style host. Imagine if someone did Ultimate Spider-Man in the 1970s and had Kraven become a radio DJ named "Wolfman Kraven."

It's a basic truth that nothing is less cool than someone desperately trying to be cool. If this is true, then ULTIMATE SPIDER-MAN is the least cool comic in world history.

Since you brought it up, here's my take on ULTIMATES:

All of the characters have devolved into vicious, ugly caricatures of themselves, with a single flaw that far superior stories have handled more subtly being exploded to disfiguring proportions (Tony Stark's alcoholism, Hank Pym's out of character incidence of spousal abuse, Captain America's Superpatriotism). They feel like Mad Magazine parody versions of the characters, except they're not a joke. In fact, there's no humor whatsoever, it takes itself that seriously.

Captain America's characterization as a violent "love it or leave it" fanatic is downright grotesque. Captain America stands for the IDEALS of America and our stumbling, slow march toward their realization, not the morally compromised reality.

Henry Pym as a wifebeater. Leave it to a fraud like Millar to blow out of proportion a single bad Shooter story that had him act wildly out of character and interpret this as the correct way to look at Giant-Man. What, you couldn't make him an anti-semite and a child pornographer as well?

The Hulk as a bone-snapping monster with none of the characteristics that make him interesting (his innocence, his childlike personality) is also unoriginal: Mr. Hyde from LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMEN wants his idea back. Yes, Hulk was based on Mr. Hyde in the beginning, but he differed so much from his start point that he could be considered an original character. And who wants to bet LXG - released barely a few years ago, gave Millar this idea and not the original novel?

Special mention should go to the Scarlet Witch shacking about with the Vision robot. Suddenly, the most beautiful love story of the entire Silver Age (and possibly in comics) that could have been wonderful to see from the outset. It has Wanda go from a courageous woman willing to defy everything for her love ("Wanda...I can make you happy! Please, please forget all the human rules and marry me." "Of course! Love is for souls, not for bodies.") and cast it into a sleazy light destructive to the characterization of all involved. Hey, I know what he can do for an encore: how about doing a version of BEAUTY AND THE BEAST where Belle is a Furry?

Thankfully, Hawkeye, the Avenger with arguably the most personality, has not been made into some unrecognizeable form.



That's a good way of putting it. No single individual writer or artist is not greater than a character's collective history and role in popular culture. This goes for any character with a history, but most especially for one as famous and important as Superman.



They put forth a satisfactory effort to make Brainiac work, and his personality and powers and appearance after some growing pains, were constant, and when Marv Wolfman updated him, it was done logically, in the context of the story in a way that made sense.



Good storytelling is never dated. If anything is dated, it is the constant reboots, that clearly show their age by instead of invoking timeless concepts, bring things in line with passing fads (see comments above about USM).

That said, some things about comics have been invented that strengthen them instead of weaken. For example, the idea of extended subplots and story arcs that have definite resolutions, used brilliantly by Kurt Busiek and Steve Englehart, and to a lesser extent, by Paul Levitz. A "bottle" approach to each individual story is no longer desirable because sub-stories allow characterization and have a bigger payoff.



Isn't that a great show? They deserve applause for "getting it." For thinking past "okay, who's a name that will move action figures and ceramic banks?"

Whether you agree or disagree with Julian, he's still master of the turn of phrase.  Well said!

Now, my critique ...

While your example was well-stated, it assumes that a single, definitive interpretation exists for a given character.

That's not the case, esp. for the Superman mythos, and certainly not for Big Blue himself.

Each decade, at least, has had a very different characterization for Superman.  He's certainly not the killing vigilante who stomps on all laws, rules, and authority as he enforces his personal idea of Right by sheer 'might is right' mentality, as per Action Comics #1.

While one may have a preference for a given characterization over another, the supermythos has had varying takes over its vast and multicoloured history.

My Superman, for instance, would never kill, never lie, nor bend his values to achieve his ends no matter how noble those ends might be.  IMHO, Superman should be iconic and super in morals not just body as the legendary superfan T.M. Maple once stated.

http://superman.nu/a/maple.php

Some core, key elements should remain or we don't have the same character anymore, at least to some fans.

I guess ultimately -- pun unintended! -- what's acceptable about a character is defined by those doing the accepting, not just the creating.

(And I still can't come anywhere near the eloquence of JulianPerez ... )

Interesting, and while I agree that the quality of conversation here is high, I have to also agree that it often comes down to subjective preference...

I like the phrase "Brainiac flavored Braniac" myself  8)  but it was jarring to me to have to reconcile his "new" (at the time) robot status with what was written before...that's a change in continuity, and one of the reasons I can't always say that strict continuity can always be maintained...and that good story telling is more important.

But talking about it is what makes the forums, so that's cool with me...

Random responses:

- Aww, c'mon.  Cat Grant's "slip into something more comfortable" and confession to the priest were laugh-out-loud funny moments, and she rightly bitched out Lois when Lois was deserving of it.  There was definitely promise there, and I didn't even really like Tracy Scoggins "attributes".

- I like Ultimate Spider-Man because it's about a teenager.  He's not saving the world against world-shaking badasses (unlike X-Men/FF/Ultimates), but simply trying to keep his head above water.  Apart from Thor and Wasp's characterizations, I'm not a big fan of the Ultimates either, and the other Ultimate books have good moments and bad.  

- Good storytelling can definitely be dated, sometimes.  Sometimes, it's the topical nature that makes it good.  But that's not even what I'm talking about.  

Building a decades-long continuity that makes sense for characters that don't really age will lead to stupid conflicts.  Think about any number of good ol' "Lois and|or Jimmy are trapped" stories that'd fall apart in the modern era owing to cell phones.  Should Supes reference those?  At what point would it become problematic to do a modern retcon of old stories for them to make sense in the current day and age?   Trying to fit decades of stories in a consistent framework is hard stuff, especially as the real world develops in a different way than one envisioned and most consumers want stories happening in some rough approximation of the real world.  

- Yeah, my complaint is about the editing.  Editors should be empowered and qualified to be the carekeepers of some great traditions and worldwide icons.  That doesn't mean they can't be innovative, but at least be aware of what.  These days, Marvel and DC develop properties for movie deals, cartoon deals, and merchandising.

I see your point re: the Avengers, but I'm not so sure you can apply it to Superman.  All Marvel characters and teams are the sum total of their long, convoluted and near-impossibly byzantine back-stories.  This is why die-hard Spidey fans reject the Sam Raimi films and X-Man fanboys have trouble with the X-films; decades of history are compressed and shuffled into something that can be shown on screen in a comprehensible manner in the space of two hours.  The rest of the world has a good time, while the fanboys whine, "But it was Gwen Stacy who fell off the bridge, not Mary Jane" and "Bobby Drake should be a contemporary of Scott Summers, not ten years younger!"

The beauty of Superman and Batman, once upon a time, was that their histories were relatively uncomplicated and easily stripped down to a handful of basic points: baby comes from Krypton, grows to super-manhood, works as a reporter.  Nuff said, let's go.  When Superman entered Kandor, did you have to have read the story where Brainiac shrank it in order to follow the action?  No (though you'd have been curious to see it!).  When the Joker escaped prison, did you have to know the details of his last encounter with Batman?  No.  This is the kind of storytelling I liked and miss; one-issue stories that can be taken as straight adventure if it's the first comic you ever read, maybe with a few asides or knowing winks to readers who've been around longer.

I think it's entirely possible to hit certain marks with a Superman story and beyond that go your own way.  And yes, when you're done, let the next guy do the same thing without regard to what you did.

The Weisinger-era mythos I loved were complex (some would say cluttered) and built on an internal continuity, but the thing that held it all together was one guy in charge.  You don't have that any more.  You have an endless succession of prima donnas and would-be auteurs taking Superman in a hundred different directions and "editors" insisting that somehow it all adds up to one big story.  I welcome "All Star Superman" because, in my mind, I've already grown accustomed to rejecting huge blocks of continuity.  I not only don't want to read about "Electric Superman," I don't even want to read about a guy who five years ago used to be Electric Superman.  I still can't get into Superman here in 2005 because nearly 20 years ago he murdered three Phantom Zone villains.  why should writers be hobbled right out of the gate by staying true to dumb stories by idiots from five years ago?  Or worse, spend their whole time on the book trying to undo, explain or make right some other writer's goofs?  Far too much time is spent these days either mucking up continuity or trying to fix it again.  Enough already.  DC's tried to create a Universe with continuity and time and again they have failed.  Time for a new approach.

I say let Morrison do his thing for a few months and move on.  If I don't like it I can quit in the middle, assured that in a year's time someone else will be along to start over.  If I do like it, I know the next guy won't come in and pervert, negate or invalidate what Morrison did.  

The single best thing about this whole idea is that it means no cross-overs.  Not between super-books, not from super-books to bat-books, nuthin'.  If I ever collect ANY monthly again...which I doubt, and that includes All-Star...it will only be with the assurance that it will never be part of any cross-over or company-wide event EVER.  

And for the record, this preview isn't very encouraging to me.  Yes, Superman seems to be at pre-Crisis power levels.  And yes, Luthor is an evil scientist as we remember him.  But the storytelling technique on these pages is confusing and the people are drawn ugly, especially Superman.  (Hardware looks nice, though.  If this was a technical manual, I might be more interested).

BTW,

Each issue of All-Star Superman will be a complete story. No cliff hangers, no slow as the Earth crust storylines that take 12 issues for a story that could be told in one issue.

As far as the Artwork goes, it kind of looks like a detailed version of the Cartoon:

(http://www.patfullerton.com/superman/pix/changing/clarkanimated.jpg)

Also well said, Nightwing.

I think I can sum up the basic theme of your above post thusly: Accessibility.

It's nice to have a rich history to a character.  But stories shouldn't be written that require fans to know every picking detail of a 20-year publishing history.  Both new and old fans should be able to pick up a book and enjoy it as a standalone story.  If they want to, they could read the previous supporting works.  But it shouldn't be mandatory reading as that becomes obstructive.

I certainly wouldn't have become a comics fan if I had to endure obstructive referencing up the wazoo just to read a single story.  That's the main reason I leaned more towards DC than Marvel as a kid.  I got really irked by Marvel's endless cross-referencing -- aka self-promotion of their other titles -- nearly every other panel.

Well here is a thought, brace yourselves...

I really think that DC should do away with continuity period. Instead take the James Bond approach.

continuity is WAY overrated.

The Superman that appeared for the of the late 30's were different than the one of the eary 40's, which in turn was already different than the mid 40's version, and again different from the late 40's. Heck every time DC told his origin, it changed! There was no real continuity back in the 40's and 50's. You can even make a case for the 60's, 70's and 80's. There were some stories that happen, then they just pretended that It never happen.

Continuity started in the late 50's... kind of, Morty wanted to start fresh every 18 months or something like that.

Just try to make everything from the late 30's to What ever happen.. fit and your head will explode.

Captain Kal writes



Arrgh!  Yep, you did it in one word.  And here I sit with carpal tunnel syndrome!  :lol:

Indeed, it's funny to hear fans say the "Crisis" was needed because old DC continuity was "so confusing."  As if it could ever match Marvel's mixed-up history for sheer impenetrability.  

I do think potential new fans are scared off by the increasingly self-referential nature of comics.  I really do think DC did it right in the old days. I didn't have to know all the history to enjoy a story, but when the story was over I often WANTED to know that history.  I had fun untangling all the twists and turns of the GA, SA and BA and the multiple Earths.  But only because I could do it at my leisure.

Speaking of crossovers, I've recently been thinking about what Superman stories would be like if Superman existed in his own seperate universe--the exception being Kirby's "Fourth World" characters. There would still be super-heroes other than Superman (the ones from the Superman mythos), but you wouldn't have an entire world populated by so many of them. Also, there wouldn't be the pressure on writers to "power down" Superman to make other characters look better.

I'm not saying that I don't like the shared universe concept. I'd just like to see how the above scenario would work.

Hmmm.  It did happen for a bit.  Superboy.  The only other heroes(so to speak) of the time(I'm not counting Legion of Super-Heroes.  That's 30th century) were Astral Lad and Insect Queen.


Let's look at the Superman family(minus Legion) heroes
Superman
Supergirl(Kara and Lydia-7)/Power Girl
Superboy
Superwoman
Lana Lang aka Insect Queen(this power set stayed with her until Crisis)
Astral Lad
Steel
Nightwing and Flamebird(not the Titans versions)


Now let's toss in some underused characters for this universe
Mark Merlin
Black Orchid
Metal Men

I liked how they were playing with the Clark, Lois, Lana dynamic before Crisis blew it away.  Lana was in love with Clark, but had lost interest in Superman.  Lois was interested in Superman, and thought Clark was a pofessional rival.

Except Superboy met other "Superboys" practically every other issue--wherhetr from the center of the Earth, from the stars or situations that strangely mirrored his own.

Fun but silly in it' sown way and hey I like to see gangsters on 'STar Trek" turn up in the Fantastic Four as much as the next guy.

I hope that analogy made sense. :wink:

The "power set" was in the form of an alien bio-ring, which sometimes found its way in the hands of other Superman friends when the comic book title called for it (Lois in Lois Lane #69, Jimmy in Jimmy Olsen #94).  It was quite a powerful item, as it could be used to turn into super-powerful Kryptonian insects.  Just imagine pollinating all the flowers on Earth at super-speed.  :)

You're...well, right, of course, but the words you use are not the ones I'd use. I'd substitute "rich, engrossing, detailed and immersive" for your choice of words, "long, convoluted and near-impossibly byzantine."

It's like the difference between saying "my girlfriend is curvy and buxom" and "your girlfriend is really fat."



With respect, I don't agree with this. The detailed level of worldbuilding that went into the Marvel Universe (and before the goose that laid the golden egg murder that was CRISIS, could also be used to describe the DC Universe as well) can be a DRAW to new readers. Okay, sure, they pick up an issue of JUSTICE LEAGUE, and they won't know right away who somebody like Ultraa is, or who the Gordianians and Guardians of the Universe are, but the fact there is so much detail there in and of itself arouses curiosity, and makes one WANT to know more about who these little blue headed guys are, or what Earth-Prime is and why Ultraa comes from there.

If having an extended, cohesive backstory is what is killing comics, detail-heavy shows like MELROSE PLACE, STAR TREK: DEEP SPACE NINE, DEADWOOD, and BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER would be failures among the general public instead of attracting new fans even after they were canceled.

I'm fascinated by the mentality that goes into distrust of the use of comics' history. On one hand, that very fan praises books like DUNE and LORD OF THE RINGS and Michael Moorcock's work for creating elaborate, detailed, rich settings filled with backstory, but on the other hand excoriates comic book worlds for doing the same thing.

Obviously something created by human beings is never going to be entirely perfect. But even mistakes in previous stories can be used to launch new ones as long as there is something concrete there to build on. Peter David got tons of mileage in his Star Trek novels out of the fact that Gary Mitchell mispelled his "best friend" James T. Kirk's name "James R. Kirk."



Interesting point. In fact, there is a case to be made about leaving stories as "period." Superman, for instance, even when updated to being a resident of the year 2005, is essentially a holdover from the 1930s, a time when we liked our heroes the way we liked our steak: beefy and All-American. One cannot divorce Superman from his World's Fair style futurism; note that every single version of Superman has had an art deco Metropolis and Superman being an alien from a distant planet.

We're very comfortable with characters like the Shadow, Doc Savage, Sherlock Holmes, and Tarzan being period characters; why not superheroes, too?

If they had been more courageous at the DC and Marvel offices, they ought to have made one of two decisions:

1) Leave stories as period pieces. Who says they have to have their pasts rolling up behind them all the time? That is, it's (for example) 1974, Gerald Ford is president, and Reed Richards, Ben Grimm and Nick Fury fought in World War II. Black Canary on Earth-2 is in her fifties, but she has good genetics and works out a lot, and though she sports a gray hair or two, she is still an active though rusty JSA member.

2) Let characters age normally. Alan Moore has taken this approach in his ABC Comics, particularly TOM STRONG, as well as in SUPREME. A "Supreme" story that was "published" in the year 1954 "actually happened" in the year 1954. Obviously this gives rise to a host of questions, but ones that have interesting solutions: for instance, notice the explanation for how Black Canary could be so youthful when it was apparent the age difference between the Earth-2 characters that fought in World War II was becoming greater and greater: the one in the JLA was the DAUGHTER of the original Black Canary.



I absolutely agree with your statement, Nightwing. Writers should not be hobbled by the fact they are to work with broken, unworkable variations of a character. You can't see far if you're standing on the shoulders of midgets.

However, the fact that DC handed the job of recreating the DC Universe to bunglers like John Byrne, Mike Grell, and Howard Chaykin, as well as "just okay, but uninspired" writers like Jerry Ordway and George Perez, does not mean that having characters remember their pasts and having a solid history that can be used to propel future plots, is always going to be doomed to be an exercise in futility.

I too, look forward to ALL-STAR SUPERMAN because DC history, as I stated above, at least at this point in time, is so broken and dysfunctional that classic versions of the character are a breath of fresh air.

My problem with the All-Stars is that it's a sign of people throwing their hands into the air and saying "I give up" about the idea that characters can live in an immersive world, just because men that lacked vision were given the keys to the car and totally blew it.

Continuity for me:

Reading one of my bother's comics, circa 1968:  "Hey, Ray, why is Mon-el in the Phantom Zone?"  And he'd tell me... 8)

Slavish continuity is cumbersome, Buffy lasted 7 years (or 5 or whatever), gawd help us if it lasted even 20!

Time travel and quantum mechanics obviate continuity, or suggest that its a limited interpretation...

I just want a decent adherence to the spirit of the mythos...I don't want a new attempt at a mythos in a specially priced mini series or every 5 years...

Or WOULD want if I hadn't stopped reading comics in 1973...

WAS there, not anymore. That universe is gone.



But those shows were self contain, DC publishes what 100 of titles a month. Big difference. You didn't have to watch 10 or 20 other series to know what was going on on MELROSE PLACE, STAR TREK: DEEP SPACE NINE, DEADWOOD, and BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER.



Those are just one or a few books, it's self-contain. Comics do not work that way.



Sure, but Crisis happen, so now what?



I agree, it's doomed, but really doomed, since DC will start over again soon and it's going to be 1,000 darker than it is now. Yippee :roll:

The new DC will have all the books extremely linked to one another. So if you love continuity, you sure are going to get it, and so is your bank account and your sanity.  :wink:

The old DC continuity was great, really. I loved it, I loved all the different Earths, but current writers couldn't reference those old stories even if they wanted to.

I much rather buy a Graphic Novel with a beginning, middle and end. It's easy to do complex continuity when it is only one comic book, one book series, one TV series, film series when these things have the same writers throughout the whole run. When one person has full control.

The way comic books are today at, DC and Marvel, that can never happen, because there will always be editors forcing people to take part of huge marketing ca...er crossovers. In the old days the Superman Family of titles were pretty much self contain, Mort ruled with an iron fist making sure every fit or else.  :shock:  He didn't want Superman to appear in any other comics, he HATED that DC forced Superman onto the Justice League, since he couldn't control that book and JL many times confuse and went against the continuity of the Superman Family comics. It's not even part of the Supermanica. You never needed to read anything other than the Superman Family titles to understand the stories and characters, crossovers were very rare other than between the family titles. The characters that did crossover were so iconic that only a panel or two explain everything you needed to know to enjoy the story and avoid confusion.

That kind of continuity worked, because it was self-contained. When it's not, it is just chaos, a sea of confusion and contradictions. It just doesn't work.

Well, THERE'S a question no one seems to want to address...that times change...and that has to do with people and what they think they want...

There will always be sites like STTA that keep the memory alive...

But I'll never forget...

Showing my mom a comic with the Flash (she was a fan of the Jay Garrick Flash), it was a JLA/JSA teamup with the preservers or whatever the hell they were throwing nets over Earth 2 heroes and having it affect Earth 1 heroes...she just kept saying, "The Flash captured bad guys, he didn't travel through space or time"...and I knew that I could accept sci-fi and that she never could...

http://www.comics.org/graphics/covers/1449/200/1449_2_082.jpg


Flash forward to a bud who bought "The Dark Knight Returns" and I started to read it, and he said, "Hey, that's a potential collector's item"...cripes, I read my Batman 80 page Giants until they fell APART...

The world is not the same, and sad to say comics will NEVER go back...

Hey ME Lad - I stopped reading in 73 too! Are you my evil twin? Ive kept abreast recently after popping my head in circa 92 and going BLECCH.

80 page Giants I bought last week are falling apart and Im sure someone out there's got my Composite WF ish with my name on it that my mother wrote. Somewhere on E-bay. I just have no idea what Im going to read after I rebuild my lost youth. Start reading Tomahawk? :roll:  

BTW Mon- El is the Phantom Zone TODAY. He won't be released until the 21st cen...uh...30th Century! :shock:  :lol:

Yes.  It was a powerful artifact.  Sheer versatility and power made Lana a high tier heroine.  She could easily fit into the Justice League with that ring.  Notice, most villians did not go after Lana to get at Superman.  True, the writers didn't really mess with Lana other than a foil for Lois.

I'm not willing to let untalented artists and writers, and thoughtless, greedy editors, off the hook that easily. Yeah, sure, times change, but how come YOUR books are so lousy, Mr. Bigshot Writer?

There are talented people born in every generation. There are talented people out there now, most of them consigned to fringe books (Dan Slott), retired (Alan Moore), marginalized or ignored completely (Christopher Priest, Jim Shooter) or chewed up and spit out by a comic industry that doesn't appreciate their great worth (Steve Englehart, Elliot S! Maggin, and since his JLA firing, it looks like Kurt Busiek too).

There can be multiple successful takes on a single character. When seeing the Superman movie, it had charm and imagination and so comparing it to the Superman comics is like comparing apples to oranges. My problem isn't that times change, but that change has really been terrible and creatively lousy. If someone did a "reboot" Superman that had the same strong emotions and imagination and central concept that the Superman of previous generations possesses, yet was very, very different in many ways, I could not compare it the previous ones because they are different and appreciate them on their own merit.

The problem with post-1986 non-stories is not that they are DIFFERENT from the Superman of previous generations, but that they have been pretty bad and clueless and thoughtless and ugly.

Likewise, my semi-objection (if it can even be called that) to ALL-STAR SUPERMAN is more complicated than just "well, it isn't my Superman."

Well, I'm not substituting "times change" for "bad writing" -- but just suggesting that its  a melange of these things...cable TV, participatory video games (if you interview a famous athlete, they won't say they read comics in their spare time but they will say the have a Playstation), the internet, etc, have changed kids expectations, the casual comics fan numbers are shrinking...

Klar:  LOL, well, for me, I stopped reading (and I have none of my comics) when the "Bronze" age was getting a little more realistic and relevant (that's fine, just not my taste) and because I was just finding other things that were more socially smiled upon... :D

ME- Well in my case, 73 brought me to art school and I went from wanting to read & darw comic books to doinf comic strips to be an illustrator. How I ended up where I did is beyond me.

I also found the other things to do besides read funny books  :twisted:

Amongst the folks who have written prominent Superman stories:

I didn't think Busiek was fired.  What I'd read was he got sick again.  Note that he was only hired to do a limited story arc, not be the permanent JLA guy, and that he really wanted to do more of a CSA story arc with the JLA was guest stars but the powers that be Denied Creativity.  

Alan Moore is only retired from "mainstream" comic books.  I'll wager that his retirement is like a comic book death.

My suspicion is that Maggin intellectualizes himself out of more work than anything else.

That's not what I heard.

I heard he was going to be the regular writer on the book. I've heard differently since, but that sounds like rewriting history. His eight issue arc bears this out. We see this in the appearance of extended plot threads that were left open in his JLA arc: the fact the CSA now owe the JLA a favor, the presence of the Cosmic Egg from JLA/AVENGERS...Kurt obviously had long-term plans. In interviews, he said he wanted to include Hawkman, Elongated Man, Atom, and Red Tornado in the League; they made guest-appearances, but would Kurt make a big bluster about how he wants them on the roster again if all he does is squeeze them in the back in a couple of fight scenes? I don't buy it.

And I especially don't buy DC's reasoning about Kurt's removal from the books, and not just for reasons of kneejerk disbelief. As a general rule, if a corporation says one thing, it's safe to believe the opposite is true. Their particular reasoning here is particularly cracked: Kurt wrote several years of AVENGERS at the *height* of his illness. Why would they kick him off JLA for that reason, if he has been shown to be able to work despite the problems with his health? It was an excuse, pure and simple, to give Mr. Silver Age the chop.  

Telling a CSA story with the JLA as guest-stars is pretty much what he did do in many ways - Kurt, as always showing his talent for creating detailed, real-seeming worlds (if he didn't write comics he would make a wonderful science fiction writer) was able to make the CSA world a more colorful and real place than any other writer before.



They say "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me," but I still wept every time Michael Jordan retired.



What do you mean?

There are many good examples of good writing done with insular "bottle" stories, like for instance, the entirety of Gardner Fox's JUSTICE LEAGUE OF AMERICA.

But there are even more examples of even better writing done using subplots and extended story arcs that unfold over various issues. What would Steve Englehart's DETECTIVE COMICS be without Rupert Thorne plagued by Dr. Hugo Strange's ghost or Silver St. Cloud gradually discovering Batman's true identity? What would Kurt Busiek's AVENGERS be without Ms. Marvel's quest for redemption from alcoholism, or the Vision/Scarlet Witch/Wonder Man love triangle?

No one wants page-killing subplots that never get resolved. However, extended story arcs that have definite resolutions lead to a greater involvement with a comic title for the reason that they allow moments for characterization, strengthen worldbuilding, provide something to do for everyone in the comic (especially important for team books) and most importantly of all provide a bigger payoff for the reader because the stories are allowed to unfold in more than one issue.

The fact is, comic books are defined by their extended stories, not by their individual single issue stories. You may not remember the plot of a single issue of MARVEL FAMILY, but who could ever forget the 2 year long battle against the Monster Society of Evil, led by the mysterious voice on the speakerbox, Mr. Mind? You may not remember the plot of a single issue of Steve Englehart's DEFENDERS, but who could ever forget their yearlong quest to restore the Black Knight from petrification, with the Valkyrie gradually falling in love with a man that had been turned to stone? And who could forget Steve Gerber's METAL MEN, where Doc Magnus temporarily went insane and then recovered his sanity with help from his robot creations, only to find he had set up various traps all over the world (okay, not as famous, but still a good story)?

True, not all writers can write extended story arcs well. Then again, not all writers can write anything at all well, either.

"Continuity" is the use of history to create stronger characterization, and the utterly indispenseable resource of a nearly infinite supply of gadgets, villains, supporting cast, countries and alternate dimensions, a databank of history that can always be used to inspire and tell new tales. It immortalizes great stories and provides a launching pad for future ones. It even can do what alchemy failed to, and turned lead into gold, as it provides a framework to allow poor stories to make sense, as long as there is a context to put them in. Continuity is GOOD - why, continuity is downright wonderful!

Imagine if Kurt Busiek had been forced to kowtow to the demands of bleating, whiny anti-continuity "fans," and was forced to treat "Ultron Unlimited" like it was the first appearance of Ultron ever. The story would have been all the poorer because the fact that Ultron had history with the Avengers that made everything personal. The stakes were raised, characterizations were tense, and plot points suggested themselves all because there was a past and a history that made "Ultron Unlimited" far more successful than if it just featured Joe Supervillain.

Continuity doesn't push away new readers at all. On the other hand, lack of continuity, making characters shallow, oversimplified versions of themselves, prevents the creation of future comics fans because there's just not enough there for them to get involved with.

So you are agreeing with me?

I think you missed one of my posts on page 4 :wink:

Check out:
http://dcboards.warnerbros.com/web/thread.jspa?threadID=56796318&start=1740&tstart=0
Busiek himself says:


FWIW, he's vocal in a number of forums besides this DC-owned one (Newsarama, rec.arts.comics.* on Usenet, etc.) and hasn't said anything untoward about DC on this.  He's not afraid to speak his mind, AFAICT.


That just shows you're not a Pistons fan.  


I dunno...  just a gut feeling hunch based off this bio:
http://www.maggin.com/Bang/bio.cfm
He just strikes me as one of those who thinks himself into a rut.

Busiek posts quite often at Millarworld. There's even a thread where you can ask him questions, which he almost always answers. In fact, I've done this before myself. He seems like a pretty cool guy.

Anyway, will this preview be up in the All Star section of the site soon?

The art is hideous.  But Morrison condensing the orign to four panels was a nice touch.

Color me unimpressed.

I had worries about Quitely's art before, when they showed his sketches of Gerard Depardieu Clark, but this...ugh. Superman looks like he's in desperate need of a diet as is! The short cape really doesn't work with this body type at all, and Morrison's emblem redesign is...well, pretty weak. Alex Ross did it better on Kingdom Come.

The preview itself looks awfully thin. We're given eight pages and all it's all setup. Superman flies in to save a space pod, Lex threatens Lois' dad...nothing really seems to be happening. Seriously, I could get this level of nothingness from the regular books. I expected more meat to the preview than what we got. Then again, after Frank Miller dragged Batman thru the mud (AGAIN) with the All-Stars book, I guess I shouldn't be surprised here.

I'll pass, thanks. Not because I don't want to see a classic-style Superman (I do, desperately), but the execution of this looks so lackluster. Matt Wagner got it right with Trinity, and Birthright came really close despite editorial inteference. I was hoping this would be on the same level, but I guess not.

The "S" doesn't bother me, I really like how it plays out on the cape...the look of Superman himself, ehhh...

Yeah, Quitely's art is nice and detailed as all get-out, but it just doesn't say 'Superman' to me. Now if they'd teamed Morrison with Chris Sprouse I'd be bouncing off the walls. As is, I'm mildly intrigued by the title, at least enough to pick up the first and possibly second issues.

 -Def.

Chris Sprouse is a wonderful artist and his cute, retro art is absolutely a treat to see and read, but he has a few weaknesses that would disqualify him from illustrating Superman:

1) All his men tend to look alike. This is also known as "John Byrne Syndrome." If all the men look alike, there's really nothing special about the Clark Kent/Superman identity at the heart of this whole story, because...well...ANYBODY looks like he could be Superman! Granted, many artists suffered from that same problem, but it's especially noticeable with Chris Sprouse; compare, for instance, how much his Supreme and Tom Strong look alike.

2) Chris Sprouse doesn't draw good looking women. For instance: Look at SUPREME #15. Here we have the Adult League of Infinity: there's Witch Wench, with her black lipstick, slinky black opera dress and long black evening gloves, and Futurewoman, with her Emma Peel style catsuit. Yet, somehow, neither of them were really "hubba hubba" worthy. Perhaps it's an intentional choice on his part - and there is something to be said for the very grotesque way women have been portrayed as sexual objects in comic books read mainly by teenage boys, giving a comic book store an air of sleaze. I for one, have no intention of defending costumes put on with a glue pot; it's a gross, mysoginistic trend. But isn't there a pleasant middle between Image-Comics exploitation and Chris Sprouse asexuality? All I'm saying is, there's something wrong if you can't make Witch Wench look good.

If anybody from the ABC Line could do Superman well, my money would be on Rick Veitch, whose classy art that is able to represent aspects of comics history successfully, his ability to portray fantasy elements well, his elaborate and very rare covers, and his skill at art deco style machinery and technology makes him qualified. I would also recommend the very skilled Arthur Adams, but I've never seen how he handles technology; he may be all right for Superman or all wrong, depending on his style.

Where's Jerry Ordway these days, and why is he not on Superman? Last I saw, he did some great Tom Strong work with Michael Moorcock (!).

I have a question for Great Rao: Will there be on-site reviews for this story like there were with Birthright?

I'd be willing to do some if you're interested--I have experience reviewing pre-Crisis comics over at the Superman Homepage.

Hey, that sounds great.  I hadn't really given it any thought yet, but those Birthright reviews (http://superman.nu/a/History/birthright/) were pretty fun.

Hmm.

How's this:

If I like the comic when it comes out (ie, if it's real Superman instead of Carlin Superman); and if I like your review - then I'll put it up on the site.

:s:

Thanks. I appreciate that.  :)

I hope so too :)

Actual Quote

(http://www.silverbulletcomicbooks.com/features/images/morrison/superman2.gif)

Morrison: As far as Superman is concerned, we’re not re-doing origin stories or unpacking classic narratives. We don’t go back to the beginning again, we start from where our Superman is RIGHT NOW and get straight into the action - almost as if he's had 20 years of alternative continuity going on behind the scenes of John Byrne's revision in 1985 - on a different Hypertime line, if you like. I'm trying to think of it as the re-emergence of the original, pre-Crisis Superman but with 20 years of history we haven't seen.

From that platform, it's a total update, rehaul and refit. Having said that, we expect everyone in the world to know Superman’s origins and have a basic grasp of the relationships of the Planet staff so, as I say, there’s no time wasted on a retelling of the backstory. We deal with the origin of Superman on page 1 and then we’re off into space for a big, new adventure, the way life’s meant to be.

Tom Strong is sort of a reworking of Supreme.  It'd be disappointing if they didn't look like each other.  FWIW, here's Sprouse's Superman, in the same vein (IMO, having something of a Curt Swan feel to it):

(http://www.comics.org/graphics/covers/5765/400/5765_4_1.jpg)

Julian Perez writes:



Yes, but in Sprouse's case at least his men look good!  Byrne's men are not attractive and what's worse, his women look just like the men only with longer hair and thinner necks.

In my opinion, no artist was ever worse about drawing identical faces than Joe Shuster.  I can honeslty say that without the text boxes I often would not have known who was doing what to whom.




I'll half-way disagree with you here, I think Chris' women are pretty.  They are not "Va-va-voom" pretty, however, and maybe that's essential to modern comics.  I think he draws females in the Curt Swan mode...pretty in a wholesome kind of way, but never in a million years what you'd call hot or provocative.  And on Superman, I wouldn't mind that.  I have never taken well to attempts to draw Lois Lane as a sex kitten.

If Sprouse has a "weakness" it's that his art, like Swan's and that of Dave Gibbons, seems to lack a certain "punch"...there is never the feeling of frenetic action (let alone giddy chaos) pioneered by Jack Kirby and so ubiquitous in this post-Marvel Age.  He and Gibbons tap nicely into that polished, Silver Age DC look ala Swan and Klein or Kane and Anderson, but they seem out of place in an era of crash-bang action and violence.  



Well if we're recruiting from ABC, I want Art Adams.  If nothing else, for a one-shot battle against Titano and King Krypton!

Heck, it's Art Adams! Make it a full story with every ape and MONKEY character and the Flame Dragon too :)

http://superman.nu/wiki/index.php/Category:Super-Apes


P.S. And Moles too, got to have moles :)

Woo!  What's not to like about that idea?   :D

That's true - I'm not denying that Chris Sprouse is a clean, correct artist who is amazing to look at.

In many ways, the most compelling and distinctive woman that Chris Sprouse ever drew was Dhalua Strong, for the simple reason that she always had a slightly ticked-off expression, separating her from his other characters.



With all respect due to the co-creator of Superman, I always thought there was something amateurish about Shuster's art. DC, apparently, agreed with me for decades, and for a long time refused to reprint any work by Shuster.

Jerry Siegel, on the other hand, was a wonderful writer, who made more additions to Superman than just about any other writer, and whose stories have incredible poignance (like RETURN TO KRYPTON) or imaginative power (Martian Ice Cream in the first Legion of Super-Heroes appearance).



I don't know - I always thought the Lois Lane that appeared on the Nick Cardy SUPERMAN FAMILY covers worked pretty well, though not everybody can draw women like Nick Cardy can.



This is true. The battles in SUPREME that were the most visually astonishing are the ones done by Rick Veitch - witness for instance, the two Supremas chucking lightning bolts at one another. The less interesting battle sequence in terms of POW was the Supreme battle against the escaped criminals in the Hell of Mirrors.

If I could include inkers, I would have to say John Totleben, who is one of the few artists that is best seen ONLY in black and white.

Jerry Siegel is one of my favorite Superman writers, let's face it, no one got Superman better than the guy who created him :)

Poor Joe Shuster gets a bum's rap. He is nowhere near as bad as people think he was, he just couldn't draw fast, so his comic book work looks primitive.

However when he was allowed to take his time, he came up with things like this:

http://www.metropolis1.net/Superman/Superman%20Painting.jpg

http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/asimov/20/capit9.html

http://www.leconcombre.com/serials/superman/LoisLane-Shuster-1.jpg

SuperMonkey, that first image is actually by the noted pulp cover artist, H.J. Ward, as documented in Daniels' "Complete History" and elsewhere.  It is pretty awesome, though, isn't it?  (Plus it looks like Ronald Reagan, which is a hoot).

A lot of historians are of the opinion that Shuster's "cartoony" look was perfect for Superman, and it's the more detailed, realistic and "correct" artists that miss the point.  Steranko wrote:

Though there was evidence of Foster's Tarzan in Shuster's work (including numerous action swipes), there was none of the explicit anatomical definition the character seemed to require.  In fact, the art embodied the quality of an editorial cartoon style, place somwhere between Calkins and Andriola.  Blacks were gratuitous.

Nevertheless, the drawing was solid, persuasively charming and functional, embracing an unpretentious simplicity that WAS early comic books."

I suppose it did have a certain urgency about it, and maybe kids could relate to it as something that looked like it was drawn by another kid.  But I have to confess I like my art a little more polished.  (Bob Kane would make the same argument about his work, incidentally -- supposedly his stuff was crude because he MEANT it to be, and he derided the more detailed work of his "ghosts" Infantino, Adams, etc.  Only Bob Kane would have the nerve to claim his inferiority made him the best!  :roll:  Or for that matter, the nerve to call Infantino and Adams -- and Miller and the rest til his death -- his "ghosts.")

LOL...

Everything in its time...

There are no absolutes... 8)

"I'm not bad, I'm just drawn that way."

Somehow, I don't think Quitely will have the same take on Lois...  sad.

Quitely's just not my cup of tea for a Superman artist. I respect his work in the Authority and JLA: Earth 2, but his work just doesn't say 'Superman' to me. It needs a touch of the dynamic, the fantastic. Hence why I'd prefer Chris Sprouse, or ChrisCross, or even Mark Bagely for the artwork. Something that pops, y'know?

 -Def.